Animal Rights or Freedom of Speech?

Last week, the United States Supreme court heard oral arguments in an interesting case involving first amendment rights. On the surface, many might see United States v. Stevens as a case of animal rights, but it is really about the rights of humans to portray issues involving animals that may violate their rights. Got that? A case about our rights to film, speak about, write about, televise and generally publicize acts of animal cruelty.

Robert Stevens sold videos of dogfights that took place both in Japan and here in the United States in the 1960s and 1970s, during which time most of the fights he filmed were legal. Dog fighting is legal in Japan. Stevens did not harm any animals to make the films or support the fighting. He simply made the videos and sold them. The federal statue forbids the buying or selling of any image of any animal being intentionally injured or killed if the recorded conduct would be illegal here and now.

Stevens went to jail for selling the videos and received a sentence that was longer than Michael Vick's. One federal appeals court has held that his sentence was unconstitutional.

In a sense Stevens is being punished for filming a crime and profiting from that film. I'm not sure that is illegal. Do we punish banks for having security cameras that film robberies? Or news broadcasts for showing us fires that might be arson or even drive-by shootings? Where do we draw the line for free speech and is that line somehow different because the beings in this film cannot speak for themselves?

I am fascinated by the dog fighting stigma attached to this crime. If he had filmed lions eating prey in Africa would he have gone to jail? It is every bit as violent and gruesome, but lions are not pets.

Yes, dog fights are now illegal, but are films about them? And even if they are, do we punish the filmmaker or the people who own and fight the dogs? In fact, do we even know if they were apprehended for their reprehensible behavior?

Stay tuned for the verdict. I am willing to bet, it will have nothing to do with being an animal lover but everything to do with protecting our right to display images associated with those who are not.